get_project_configuration

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, and the phrase 'including schemes and targets' adds useful scope. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., what happens if no active project exists) or whether the result contains all configuration details or only selected ones.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information or filler; every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what is returned. It provides the core purpose but not the return format or details about edge cases like a missing active project. Given the tool's low complexity, this is minimally adequate but leaves some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, which earns a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, but it does reference 'active project' as a contextual state that determines behavior, adding slight meaning beyond the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' paired with a clear resource ('configuration details for the active project') and concrete examples ('schemes and targets'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_active_project (which returns the project itself) and list_available_schemes (which lists only schemes).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly communicates when to use the tool—when you need configuration details of the currently active project—but it does not explicitly mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing an active project first) or alternatives. There is no exclusion guidance to help decide between this and related tools like list_available_schemes or list_available_destinations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.